STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus SATNAM KAUR AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 891 · Decided: 16-12-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

ST ATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
SATNAM KAUR AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 16, 2005 
(S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Selection-Selection process-31 posts were filled up pursuant to an 
advertisement-Writ petition filed by some unsuccessfully candidates wherein C 
only 18 of the selected candidates were made parties-Entire selection process 
was questioned on the ground that the names of the said 18 selected candidates 
were recommended by some influential persons-High Court set aside the 
selections made by the Selection Board-Thereafter, the appointments of all 
the 31 selected candidates were cancelled-Those candidates who were not D 
made parties in the earlier writ petition challenged the cancellation of their 
appointments on the ground that they were not bound by the decision of the 
High Court-The High Court allowed the writ petition-Correctness of-
Held: The High Court for all intent and purport sought to bypass its own 
binding judgment-The effect of non-joinder of the said candidates would 
not be such which would confer a legal right upon them to file another writ E 
petition whereby the effect of the earlier judgment would be completely wiped 
out-High Court judgment set aside. 
The respondents were appointed to certain posts pursuant to an 
advertisement for 31 posts. A writ petition was filed by some unsuccessful 
candidates wherein 18 of the selected candidates were made parties but not F 
the respondents. The entire selection process was questioned on the ground 
that the names of the said 18 selected candidates were recommended by some 
influential persons. The High Court set aside the selections made by the 
Selection Board. The said order was upheld by this Court. The appellant-State, 
thereafter, cancelled the appointment of all the 31 candidates. 
G 
The respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court contending 
that as they had been appointed on an ad hoc basis long time back and they 
were not parties in the earlier writ petition, they were not bound by the 
decision of the High Court and, therefore, the appellant-State could not have 
891 
II 
892 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A cancelled their appointments. The High Court allowed the writ petition. Hence 
the appeal. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. This was not a case where the High Court could have 
B interfered with the order passed by the appellant-State cancelling the 
appointments of all the 31 selected candidates. It is true that in the writ petition 
filed by some of the unsuccessful candidates only 18 out of the 31 selected 
candidates were made parties, but they were made parties because an additional 
ground was taken by the writ petitioners therein that their cases were 
recommended by some influential persons or they were otherwise known to 
C the Civil Surgeon. The main prayer on the said writ petition, however, was 
that the entire selection process was bad in law. Once the High Court was of 
the opinion that the entire selection process was bad in law and the said order 
having been upheld by this Court it was impermissible to bypass the same. 
The contention of the respondents that they were entitled to be regularized in 
D services was not a matter which had a direct nexus with the order of 
termination of their services passed by the State. Indisputably, they took part 
in the selection process. Indisputably again such selection process was 
initiated pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Civil Surgeon. Once 
the respondents had participated in the selection process and were selected, 
they could not have filed a writ petition on a different premise, namely, they 
E having been appointed on ad hoc basis long time back, their services should 
have been regularized pursuant to or in furtherance of a purported policy 
decision. (897-C-F] 
2. The High Court for all intent arid purport, thus, sought to bypass its 
F own binding judgment as also the order of this Court. Moreover, the effect of 
such judgments did not fall for discussion by the High Court. The effect of 
non-joinder of the respondents would not be such which would confer a legal 
right upon them to file another writ petition whereby and whereunder the effect 
of the earlier judgment would be completely wiped out (898-CI 
G 
· Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) 
Ltd, (199716 SCC 450, Ajay Kumar Bhuyan v. State of Orissa, (2003] 1 SCC 
707 and Mis. D. Navinchandra & Co. v. Union of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.